"Not Getting it" Less Is Not The Same As Having A Clue

It's already well-established that the Other Side loves 'em some Leader Principle* and I guess Mitt figures it's a fine shovel to dig with, but dammit!

The President is not Our Leader to anyone but the Armed Forces; he's just the guy we elect to shake hands with kings and run the Federal gummint -- not run the citizenry.

Oh, Mr. Johnson-- I'll give you the annoying autoplay website, if maybe you know what the damn job you're applying for actually is.

I doubt it.

Y'know who really won the Second World War? Mussolini. Yeah, the Italians strung him up from a streetlight, but he was first across the line with the Leader Principle, and by the time The Last Good War was over, Mr. Roosevelt, Mr. Stalin, Mr. Churchill and Mr.Hitler had established this damfool notion that the guy runnin' a country was the boss of everyone who lived there. (Mr. Tojo took advantage of something similar by proxy). I guess the nitwits were starved for Kings; whatever, the friggin' fascists colonized the zeitgeist and we have been stuck with it ever since.

Mitt's probably the best practical hope -- and a thin, thin reed indeed. Changing the slope isn't the same as reversing the slope.__________________________________* Sounds eviller in the original German but it Godwins the discussion.

16 comments:

Wish I could remember where I read it, but someone says the natural tendency of Human Government is to have a King or Queen. In Modern Euro-style Parliamentary Systems, we just have the Winning Party choose one until the next Election is called. In our so-called "Representative Republic," we give ours 4 years, and then can re-hire him/her for another 4. The rest of the world usually has a "President for Life" or another kind of Dictator/King. Look at North Korea. Third Generation of the same Family in charge in a "People's Republic?"

There are very few places that a Committee actually runs things. And all the Anarchists should move to Somalia to see how their system is working out. But over all, most Humans like the idea of having someone on Top doing the Job of Government, at least for a set term.

Not saying it's the way I like things to be run, but then again, I have no control over most of Humanity, either.

Wish I could remember where I read it, but someone says the natural tendency of Human Government is to have a King or Queen. In Modern Euro-style Parliamentary Systems, we just have the Winning Party choose one until the next Election is called. In our so-called "Representative Republic," we give ours 4 years, and then can re-hire him/her for another 4. The rest of the world usually has a "President for Life" or another kind of Dictator/King. Look at North Korea. Third Generation of the same Family in charge in a "People's Republic?"

There are very few places that a Committee actually runs things. And all the Anarchists should move to Somalia to see how their system is working out. But over all, most Humans like the idea of having someone on Top doing the Job of Government, at least for a set term.

Not saying it's the way I like things to be run, but then again, I have no control over most of Humanity, either.

Methinks you are capitalizing where you shouldn't be. The word isn't capitalized in the article. And Mitt, quite frankly, doesn't strike me as the "Dear Leader" type.

Like it or not, the President (under an interpretation of the Constitution that seems to have begun with Lincoln, became pretty much set under TR, then was abused by his evil cousin and most of his successors) is our leader. Some just are better at it than the current example.

As P.J. O'Rourke observed, "The president is not an ordinary politician trying to conduct the affairs of state as best he can. He is a divine priest-king. And we Americans worship our state avatar devoutly. That is, we do until he shows any sign of weakness, and disability, as it were. Sir James Frazer, in The Golden Bough, said: 'Primitive peoples... believe that their safety and even that of the world is bound up with the life of one of these god-men... Naturally, therefore, they take the utmost care of his life... But no amount of care and precaution will prevent the man-god from growing old and feeble... There is only one way of averting these dangers. The man-god must be killed.' Thus in our brief national history we have shot four of our presidents, worried five of them to death, impeached one and hounded another out of office. And when all else fails, we hold an election and assassinate their character."

I think Iceland (in the time period between 900 and 1250) was ruled by an island-wide committee, following a law that was remembered orally.

However, that system of government eventually succumbed to outside pressure and internal trouble; the island became a possession of the King of Norway.

Iceland was likely more peaceful than modern Somalia. However, the law of the island was enforced by every man going about armed. Vendetta and blood-feud were well-known, eve if they were not the only way of settling problems.

Besides that, I can't think of many countries in history that didn't have a single powerful man in the position of quasi-king/leader.

This mess didn't get made over-night, it won't be fixed that way either. The single largest change required a war that claimed a higher percentage of American lives than any other, and rested power from the States, that was usurped by the Federal Government. The next two problems occurred almost simultaneously when income tax, and direct election of Senators, where enacted by amendment to the Constitution. Until these three things are changed, the Federal Government will continue to get more bloated and out of control.

"Y'know who really won the Second World War? Mussolini." Ding ding ding ding! Winner! Every time someone says the words "Fiscal policy," they are espousing fascist ideas. Check the 1920 platform of the National Socialist German Workers Party for proof.

Somalia isn't anarchy, but it is the natural result of anarchy - every thug that can get another thug to follow him will try to become a government. Humans are neither ants (natural collectivists) nor tigers (natural anarchists.) They *want* their leaders - it's accumulated experience (knowledge of history) that gives some of us the wisdom to try to limit the power of the leader.

Mussolini's invention wasn't the Fuhrer Principle, but the rejection of power-limiting traditions that grew over several thousand years of social development. E.g., medieval monarchs only had absolute power in theory - in practice, if they were natural leaders they could influence the committees and nobles that handled the details. If not... Fourteenth century France had two kings in four generations that were quite definitely non compos mentis, and the most notable difference from usual was that there were no idiotic cavalry charges against English longbowmen and pike formations in good defensive positions.

Human sacrifice- you may be on to something. If we begin immolating our Leaders at the end of their terms, perhaps there will be none that desire the position and we can go back to an elected executive.

"I saw to what extent the people among whom I lived could be trusted as good neighbors and friends; that their friendship was for summer weather only; that they did not greatly propose to do right; that they were a distinct race from me by their prejudices and superstitions."